AddThis

Thursday, 7 June 2012

Ed Miliband’s bloodless Conception of Englishness

This morning Ed Miliband delivered a speech at the Royal
Festival Hall, ostensibly addressing the question of England and its
relationship to the United Kingdom, even touching upon the nature of English identity
whilst predictably recoiling from recognising the English as a distinct people.
Naturally, the fate of the United Kingdom is of rather more than theoretical
concern to the Labour Party, for if Scotland were to become independent, it
would remove a large tranche of Labour MPs from Westminster, perhaps depriving
the party of the chance to again form a government in a truncated union or
England.

That Miliband has bothered to mention England and the
English highlights growing Labour concern that the party has lost touch with
the English working class, and must be seen as in all likelihood prompted by
Jon Cruddas who is working on a policy review intended to renew Labour’s
appeal to its traditional support base. Whereas Miliband’s speech was not billed
as such, its content could thus be viewed as presaging the tentative
introduction of the ‘Blue Labour’ concept (although 'Blue Labour' is said to have been "effectively disbanded" in July 2011, the party would be wise to heed its recommendations with respect to immigration and its critique of neoliberalism) of which Cruddas is said to be one of
the leading exponents, occupying to a certain extent the territory claimed by
the ‘Red Tory’ idea. Although both seek to capitalise upon a sense of English
alienation from mainstream political parties generated by the latter’s
promotion of globalisation and mass immigration, the ‘Blue Labour’ and ‘Red
Tory’ approaches affect concern about these issues, whilst neither tackling
them nor wishing to do so. Each is fashioned so as to present a reassuring
message to the electorate, an anodyne for the dying English patient which is
being ushered out of existence to make way for new blood from overseas.

Returning to the ‘substance’ of Ed Miliband’s speech, he
emphasised how he believes that “multiple allegiances” are stronger than single
ones and that the “debate about nationhood and identity can’t be left to one
part of the United Kingdom.” As ever, although this speech was billed as being
about England and Englishness, Miliband could not restrain his enthusiasm for
globalist internationalism from breaking through, referring to the need “to
embrace a positive outward looking version of English identity” and an outward
looking patriotism. Heaven forbid that the English should for a moment reflect
and perceive themselves to be a distinct nation and people bound by common ties
of culture, history, language and descent!

Miliband, as in previous speeches, employed the parental
refugee theme, outlining his parents’ flight from Nazism and subsequent
settlement in England, which whilst offering them “a new home . . . allowed
them to stay true to who they were.” In this way, he underscored his belief in
multiculturalism: “Britain is a country where you can have more than one
identity; more than one home.” Yes, that is the case, but it does not strike me
as desirable for swathes of the population here not only to self-identify as
Pakistanis, but to also possess Pakistani passports, Pakistani attitudes and a
Pakistani animus towards the English. “Multiple allegiances” in this case are
no “source of strength”, but rather one of discord and weakness.

One of the most striking aspects of Miliband’s speech was
that he repeatedly referred to the Scots, the Welsh and the English and the
“false choice” that was proffered between these various identities and
Britishness. Of course, in this respect he is correct, for we are all native
peoples of the island of Britain and thus by definition simultaneously a member
of one of these three peoples and British, but it did seem to be telling that
he did not acknowledge the real problems that can arise from cleft identities
nurtured by multiculturalism such as ‘British’-Somali or ‘British’-Pakistani,
etc.

In mentioning English culture, Miliband emphasised that
musicians, artists and scientists were characterised by their “constantly moving
across national boundaries”, and his speech was peppered with references to
being “outward looking” and “internationalist”. In other words, whilst
purporting to address and acknowledge the importance of England and
Englishness, Miliband was simultaneously reducing England to a territorial
expression and Englishness to a bloodless malleable cultural construct essentially
devoid of substance, continuity and distinctiveness. By adopting such a vapid
approach to the question of England and Englishness, Miliband was thereby able
to talk about “English identity [which for the Labour Party] has tended to be a
completely closed book that people have shied away from.” Although Miliband may
today have opened a book whose cover displayed the Cross of St George, its
contents consisted of the same old Labour globalist internationalism. Whilst
those such as Miliband may think that Englishness consists of nothing more than
a flag and a bit of bunting, the English themselves know this not to be the
case.

11 comments:

I don't see any problem with multi-identity. But I am schizophrenic. Seriously though, we all have multiple identities. The problem with multi-culturalism is how these identities take precedence. Mr. Milliband contradicts himself on this point. He stated that one identity overwhelms the others and then wants the English to engage in debate. The English are not allowed an identity. We are all part of of multi-culty society where to describe yourself as ''English'' is considered racist. Where he states that one identity overwhelms another is true. I'm British - English - Christian. This is something to be abohored. Muslim - Pakistani - British is to be applauded. While this attitude predominates the English will never be heard.

We do. However, it's very interesting to see that Miliband places his 'English' identity on a par with being a Boston Red Sox fan. Now that really has to be a pretty weak and insipid form of affiliation. Are we therefore to expect him to make impassioned speeches in defence of the Boston Red Sox and their interests in future? How about making them more 'diverse' by merging them with hostile teams? That would be an interesting sporting experiment, if you're into baseball that is, which I am not.

I think Milliband and Labour are trying to forestall what is always the possibility of a cogent nationalism taking hold of the British people, perhaps in the way that Thatcher's 'fears of being sawmped speech' did just before her first election victory.

Please be on the alert for the BBC's latest efforts to instil Milliband's diminished version of 'Britishness' in its latest history series 'The Great British Journey'. Perhaps, Durotrigan, you might provide us with a critique as the series inevitably climaxes with the mass immigration of the past 50 years being hailed as "the apotheosis of Britshness" or some such dogmatic bilge.

Ah yes, I saw one of those episodes the other night, and could see the multiculturalist subtext bubbling away beneath the surface as impatient as Ridley Scott's Alien waiting to tear its way out of someone's abdominal cavity. What you say with respect to the concluding episode is undoubtedly correct, so I may be moved to write a splenetic review when the time comes.

He's a UK citizen and a Fabian as you note, the son of an English-loathing cosmopolitan, and thus lacks a sense of Englishness. I don't object to him valuing his roots, but I do object to him demeaning ours and claiming that we don't have a right not only to our identity, but also to self-determination in our own homeland.

Miliband is suddenly speaking on English/British cultural identity and is also campaigning against a 'Yes' vote in a Scottish independence referendum. Wonder why ? Well of course it is very simple (it has to be simple if Miliband is to get his head around it !). After the 2005 General Election the Tories held more seats in England than Labour. Blair and then 'McStalin' Brown ruled the UK on Labour votes in Scotland & Wales (there are no seats held by any of the major parties in Ulster). Without the Scottish Labour MP's how would University tuition fees, academy schools, foundation hospitals have been voted for - they were voted for by Scottish MP's but of course they do not apply in Scotland.

Scotland is the Labour Party's heartland. It fulfills all of the requirements to be a 'Socialist Republic' - it is permanently skint (as far back as the disastrous Darien Gap venture of the early 1700's that left Scotland bankrupt so Scottish nobility voted for the 'Treaty of Union' - it should be renamed the 'Bailout Scotland Treaty'). M Thatcher said 'Socialism is great untill you run out of other people's money to spend'! Scotland since 1707 has financed itself from the other parts of the Union. This has accelerated since devolution. Labour took their Scottish core vote for granted and showed contempt for those voters together with numerous examples of corruption. As a result Labour had a shock when Salmond's SNP took control. If Salmond wins his referendum there will be no Scottish Labour MP's in Westminster and it is possible that Labour will never win outright power in a UK General Election again.

Spot on Ivan. However, if Scotland does not become independent, then Scottish Westminster MPs must certainly be debarred from involvement in policy formulation relating to devolved matters such as education and health. England doesn't need a parliament of its own, for we already have Westminster, but the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs should be excluded from dictating to the English when it comes to policy matters that have been devolved to their respective assemblies.

A very well written post. It's noticeable that Milliband has chosen to address the concept of 'Englishness' only as part of an attempt to express his support for the union, driven by a concern for the Labour seats that might be lost by Scottish independence. Thus the insistence that the English ought to be outward looking (ie pro-union) - God forbid that we should ever be allowed a hint of consideration for our national identity for it's own sake. This is the reason that English Nationalism is always automatically linked to racism, bigotry and xenophobia (as they always say - ugly nationalism) - they fear the growing rise of the English population's growing sense of nationhood and it's possible effects on the union . They don't know whether to continue to be dismissive of this trend, or exploit it. Mr. Milliband is clearly testing the waters.

Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.